[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 14 | 19 December

Wed Dec 21 21:35:32 UTC 2016

Grec,
I could agree with the following

Q1
Has your  ability to use domain name-related services been affected by
ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Q2
can go as drafted
Q3
totally to be deleted
Q4
I could agree with Phil Corwin edits but deleting the the following
text particularly
with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability
mechanisms?

Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-20 16:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction
> Subgroup Meeting #14* – 19 December 2016 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/ZpTDAw
>
>
>
> A copy of the notes may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Brenda Brewer
>
> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
>
> *Notes (including relevant parts of chat):*
>
> *1.         Welcome*
>
> Greg  Shatan: No changes to SOIs.
>
> *2.         Questionnaire*
>
>       a.  Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary
>
>       b.  Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions
>
> Greg Shatan: Unfortunate Parminder is not on call. He had asked for an
> annex to the preamble to be the full Annex 12.
>
> Milton Mueller: Not in favour of modifying preamble. Propose we simplify
> vs expand the preamble. Propose we delete everything after the second
> paragraph.
>
> avri doria: whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit
> their hoped for outcome. but the answers take time.  better we have people
> willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time.
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: We can simplify and include a link to
> the relevant part of Annex 12
>
> Milton Mueller: People need to understand the questions, Avri
>
> avri doria: inclusion of 12 by reference is ok.
>
> Milton Mueller: And some of them won't even read the questions if they
> have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: Have no problem with shortened preamble - but simply add
> hyperlink to Annex 12.
>
> Greg Shatan: So the proposal is to take the first two paras, add the link
> and then fix the last para.
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Makes sense, what Greg just summarized
>
> avri doria: it is less than a page, that is not long.
>
> David McAuley: As the drafter of the preamble not unsympathetic to
> shortening.
>
> avri doria: take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page.
>
> Milton Mueller: Right Greg
>
> David McAuley (RySG): OK
>
> Greg Shatan:  cut Further Background and Specifically it would be short -
> do we need TO HELP? I think the last para is useful.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: Last para needs to stay.
>
> avri doria: do not remove that para. please
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on last paragraph - go with those edits
> Greg
>
> Avri Doria: SPECIFICALLY para is important.
>
> Greg Shatan: really need to condense the first three paras. any
> objections? (none). Let us move on to the first question.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: Propose to delete Business and Privacy and as JN proposed
> in the plenary remove RELATED SERVICES.
>
> Greg Shatan: Any comments? (none)
>
> Greg Shatan: Proposal Have your activities related to domain name services
> been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: domain name system or servicees? Willing to be corrected.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN
> services than ICANN deals with
>
> Jeff Neuman: DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not
> related to ICANN
>
> Milton Muller: We can qualify DNS later. We are interested in any effect
> of ICANN's jurisdiction on DN Services - you cannot buy DNSystem.
>
> Greg Shatan: "domain name-related services"? to avoid confusion with
> managed DNS services etc.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh 2: what is DNS services pls?
>
> Milton Mueller: domain name-related services is ok with me
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree
>
> Christopher Wilkinson: support keeping Business and Privacy in question 1.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: Services/Systems is used in other for a – could solve the
> problem here?
>
> David McAuley: Need to focus it on ICANN related services etc. could be
> fixed in intro.
>
> Greg Shatan: other comments? (none) 1 for changing, 1 against...any
> further comments. Temperature check 3 and 3 so no consensus.
>
> Milton Mueller: I am against changing it
>
> Kavouss Arasteh 2: then other people would be against what was in the
> initial text. Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts
> again any comments
>
> Greg Shatan: new temperature check
>
> Kavouss Arasteh 2: I object to the initial text
>
> Greg Shatan: will republish the first question to the list. Second
> question (no comment). third question, comments? (none).
>
> David McAuley (RySG): 2 seems ok
>
> Greg Shatan: Question 4. Much discussion on the list regarding this.
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What
> are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's
> jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s
> policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with
> appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other
> studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current
> or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems."
>
> avri doria: looks good
>
> Philip Corwin 2: +1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-)
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 to Phil :D
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: issue with Q3.
>
> Greg Shatan: Q3 was added to allow people to submit other
> people/business/countries experiences if documented.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh 2: I am not convinced by Q3 objectives
>
> avri doria: we are worried about people answering one questionnaire.  Now
> we want to send them two?
>
> Greg Shatan: Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or
> purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction
> in any way?
>
> Greg Shatan: This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate
> suggestion.
>
> Milton Mueller: I am opposed to Q4 in this questionnaire - could be sent
> independently later (Explaining rationale for this)
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: not convinced on question 3. Worried it has not meaning.
>
> Greg Shatan: needs to be verifiable.
>
> Kavouss Arateh: do not agree.
>
> Erich Schweighofer: Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will
> ignore it.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder
> can simply say that the report is verifiable.
>
> Paul McGrady 2: I tend to agree with Kavouss.  Q3 has little real value
> since it is just gathering hears
>
> Avri Doria: Support Q3 for secondary sources. Requires more work in
> analysis but still very useful.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the
> work of verification?
>
> Wale Bakare: Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge.
>
> Milton Mueller: those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking
> opportunities
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: still do not support Q3 - cannot get comments from
> experiences who are not your own.
>
> Christopher Wilkinson: Understand the concern about Q3 vs validation. But
> still could be useful. Would prefer not to have hearsay.
>
> Greg Shatan: Need to focus Q3 to get valid information.
>
> Paul McGrady 2: We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that
> don't fit though.
>
> Wale Bakare: IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could
> be sourced from as well.
>
> Milton Mueller: of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual
> reports or information we toss it out.
>
> Avri Doria: needs to be there. This could be the factual basis to lead to
> other discussions.
>
> Milton Mueller: we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: agree with Avri... as said before Phil
> Corwin's formulation could work
>
> (many people leaving for other call)
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: need Q4 but can be re-edited.
>
> Greg Shatan: KA are you ok with PC edits.
>
> Erich Schweighofer: I support the revised version.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer
> Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4.
>
> Milton Meuller: Q4 should be reformulated and not sent at the same time -
> but if we have to send it the PC version is ok.
>
> Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Let's go with Phill's version if
> everyone can live with this
>
> Kavouss Arasteh 3: I do not agreee David with that version
>
> Greg Shatan: I will put these options out on the list. Adjourned
>
>       c.  Question 4
>
>               i.  Can this question be revised to get broader support?
>
>               ii.  Should this question be sent separately?
>
>       d.  Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG
>
>  Plenary
>
> 3.  Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
>
>       a.  How to publish/send out questionnaire
>
>       b.  How to collect responses
>
> 4.  Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps
>
> 5.  AOB
>
> 6.  Adjourn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161221/74c8fe09/attachment-0001.html>